The Lemur is publishing a selection of the most original, compelling, and persuasive final op-eds written in Fall 2025’s Public Policy 301: Political Analysis for Public Policy-Making, taught by Dr. Deondra Rose.
Civil discourse at Duke University is not working. My freshman year I attended an Israel-Palestine civil discourse panel promoting idealistic peace dialogue and optimistic hopes that Duke students would become the leaders that solve, once and for all, the deep-rooted, cultural issues that plague our time. As I walked back to my dorm, I stumbled upon a peaceful Israel-Palestine protest turned vicious under the Free Expression Bridge. Protestors and counterprotesters alike vlogged hate speech videos for their Instagram stories with cultural insults about their fellow students. I later saw these same Instagram accounts attempting to “dox” protestors or counterprotesters online by revealing their full names or targeting unmasked faces. I realized the civil discourse discussion I attended was not reflective of the student body and it had not inspired either side to cordially discuss the real issues with each other. To make real change on campus, we need to try something new: restorative justice.
Duke’s favorite buzzword, “civil discourse,” is marketed as an open, fact-based conversation that magically encourages students to consider the other side and work together. These discussions are held in a formal academic setting, like guest speaker series or roundtables. However, civil discourse is far from magical. It encourages passive participation rather than addressing emotional harms, deeper cultural wounds, and imbalances in power. Policy researchers Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens found that safe spaces, like civil discourse lectures and formal discussion, fail to cultivate discomfort which is part of growth. Restorative justice is unique because it relies on vulnerability and lived experiences rather than academic jargon and literature. Restorative justice creates brave spaces where students can be challenged and grow.
You may be asking yourself, what exactly is restorative justice? Restorative justice, or RJ, is a discussion between community members, victims, and offenders to heal relationships, take accountability, and come up with solutions that benefit the community. Restorative justice uses inclusive dialogue to hear from all community members impacted by an issue, not just lecturers or professors. In a typical RJ setting, a moderator asks difficult, deeply personal questions while attendees sit in a circle and proceed to share vulnerable testimonies one-by-one. Unlike civil discourse, RJ acknowledges structural and institutional factors. Issues like power dynamics and histories of marginalization, that contribute to polarization, are addressed to alleviate the hesitancy to share personal feelings.
A common misconception is that the broader concept of RJ is used to reduce recidivism rates or address crime, but it has a wider array of applications. Universities that have used RJ programs, through restorative hearings or frequent conferences, have become popular discussion outlets for college students. University of San Diego has adjusted university policies to become a “restorative campus” and has seen a 40% reduction in campus conflict through their circling conferences. Similarly, University of Denver reported that their open-dialogue, emotions-based program has reduced repeat conflicts between polarized student groups by 30%. Both RJ programs addressed systemic issues and focused on holistic principles as opposed to civil discourse’s focus on ideas alone.
Critics may argue conversations have been long exhausted on polarizing topics, and nothing has happened on Duke’s campus to reach polarized student groups. RJ is just another useless conversation. But University of San Diego and University of Denver have faced similar social problems to Duke. Both have proven RJ discussion circles have helped skeptical students open up and become willing to engage in communal solutions and healing between students, even if they have fundamentally different values.
So, how can we implement RJ at Duke to address contentious or broad political polarization? It’s quite easy! Duke can form a RJ team of certified facilitators ready to address a wide array of topics and contact student leaders at the forefront of contentious social issues to be a part of the RJ circle. Several students at Duke are already certified in RJ and would be excited to practice their skills. In the case of Israel-Palestine talks, Duke could capitalize on resources from the Provost’s Initiative on the Middle East and recruit leaders from Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Student Union for a series of solution-oriented discussions. Another, simpler, use case for RJ is in the classroom. Classes that discuss divisive issues can consider how biased framing impacts our perception of issues and focus on community building rather than debate or persuasion. Although RJ at Duke can’t resolve all global disagreements, our campus could become a hub of hope for the future. Rebuilding relationships and trust in our community will prepare us all to lead with empathy and value open dialogue.
by Taylor Reasin
Taylor Reasin is a junior at Duke University studying Public Policy and Computer Science.
